Evaluation of methohexital as an alternative to propofol in a high volume outpatient pediatric sedation service.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is a preferred agent for many pediatric sedation providers because of its rapid onset and short duration of action. It allows for quick turn around times and enhanced throughput. Occasionally, intravenous (IV) methohexital (MHX), an ultra-short acting barbiturate is utilized instead of propofol. OBJECTIVE: Describe the experience with MHX in a primarily propofol driven outpatient sedation program and to see if it serves as an acceptable alternative when propofol is not the preferred pharmacologic option. METHODS: Retrospective chart review from 2012 to 2015 of patients receiving IV MHX as their primary sedation agent. Data collected included demographics, reason for methohexital use, dosing, type of procedure, success rate, adverse events (AE), duration of the procedure, and time to discharge. RESULTS: Methohexital was used in 240 patient encounters. Median age was 4years (IQR 2-7), 71.8% were male, and 80.4% were ASA-PS I or II. Indications for MHX use: egg+soy/peanut allergy in 93 (38.8%) and mitochondrial disorder 9 (3.8%). Median induction bolus was 2.1mg/kg (IQR, 1.9-2.8), median maintenance infusion was 4.5mg/kg/h (IQR, 3.0-6.0). Hiccups 15 (6.3%), secretions requiring intervention 14 (5.8%), and cough 12 (5.0%) were the most commonly occurring minor AEs. Airway obstruction was seen in 28 (11.6%). Overall success rate was 94%. Median time to discharge after procedure completion was 40.5min (IQR 28-57). CONCLUSION: Methohexital can be used with a high success rate and AEs that are not inconsistent with propofol administration. Methohexital should be considered when propofol is not a preferred option.

Ondansetron use in the pediatric emergency department and effects on hospitalization and return rates: are we masking alternative diagnoses?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the effect of ondansetron use in cases of suspected gastroenteritis on the proportion of hospital admissions and return visits and assess whether children who receive ondansetron on their initial visit to the pediatric emergency department (ED) for suspected gastroenteritis return with an alternative diagnosis more frequently than those who did not receive ondansetron. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of visits to 2 tertiary care pediatric EDs with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis of vomiting or gastroenteritis. A logistic regression model was developed to determine the effect of ondansetron use during the initial pediatric ED visit on hospital admission, return to the pediatric ED within 72 hours, and admission on this return visit. For patients who returned within 72 hours and were admitted, hospital discharge records were reviewed. The proportions of alternative diagnoses, defined as a hospital discharge diagnosis that was not a continuation of gastroenteritis or vomiting, were compared between the groups. RESULTS: During the 3-year study period (2005 to 2007), 34,117 patients met study criteria. Ondansetron was used for 19,857 (58.2%) of these patients on their initial pediatric ED visit. After controlling for differences between the groups, patients who received ondansetron were admitted on their initial visit less often: odds ratio (OR) 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 0.53). However, those who received ondansetron were more likely to return to the pediatric ED within 72 hours (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65) and be admitted on the return visit (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.39 to 2.19). The proportions of alternative diagnoses at hospital discharge were not significantly different in the group that received ondansetron on the initial pediatric ED visit (14.9%) compared with the group that did not (22.4%) (absolute difference 7.5% [95% CI -0.5% to 16.4%). CONCLUSION: Ondansetron use in the pediatric ED reduces hospital admissions for suspected gastroenteritis and vomiting. However, children who receive ondansetron in the pediatric ED appear more likely to return to the pediatric ED and be admitted on this return visit than their counterparts. Furthermore, the use of ondansetron does not appear to be associated with increased risks of masking serious diagnoses in children.

Herbal therapy use in a pediatric emergency department population: expect the unexpected.

BACKGROUND: In recent years investigators have reported widespread use of alternative medicine. Some herbal therapies have potentially harmful side effects as well as adverse interactions with medications. Data are lacking on the use in children and caregiver understanding of these products. OBJECTIVES: To determine the reported use of herbal products among a pediatric emergency department population and to evaluate the caregivers' understanding and source of information concerning these products. DESIGN/METHODS: A convenience sampling of pediatric emergency department patients and their caregivers occurred during a 3-month period in 2001. The interview consisted of 18 questions regarding the types of non-Food and Drug Administration-regulated herbal products and home remedies used, general product knowledge and sources of information used by the child's caregiver (including discussions with their child's primary physician). RESULTS: One hundred forty-two (93%) of 153 families approached participated in the study. The mean patient age was 5.3 years (range: 3 weeks-18 years). Forty-five percent of caregivers reported giving their child an herbal product, and 88% of these caregivers had at least 1 year of college education. Of the children receiving these therapies, 53% had been given 1 type and 27% were given 3 or more in the past year. The most common therapies reportedly used were aloe plant/juice (44%), echinacea (33%), and sweet oil (25%). The most dangerous potential herbal and prescription medication combination reported was ephedra and albuterol in an adolescent with asthma. The most unusual products reportedly used included turpentine, pine needles, and cowchips. Of all people interviewed, 77% did not believe or were uncertain if herbal products had any side effects and only 27% could name a potential side effect. Sixty-six percent were unsure or thought that herbal products did not interact with other medications and only 2 people correctly named a drug interaction. Of the people who used these therapies, 80% reported either friends or relatives as their primary source of information. Only 45% of those giving their children herbal products report discussing the use with their child's primary health care provider. CONCLUSION: Herbal and home therapies are commonly used in this pediatric population. An unexpectedly wide variety of products were reportedly given to this patient population. Caregivers reported limited knowledge regarding potential adverse medication interactions and side effects. Limited discussions with the child's primary health care provider were reported. It is therefore important for health care providers to have knowledge about herbal medications, to inquire about their use and to educate families about the risk/benefit as well as potential interactions these products may have with over-the-counter and prescription medications.